KHAF ( Half Moon Day ) IFR Departure

[RLVoumard]

Winds seem to always favor RW 30 at HAF for arrival /departure. Being on the Coast FOG is often present.

Looking at the IFR departure procedures. NA for RW 30 ??

So you arrive at the AP to find morons FOG , winds howling down 30 and what now ?? stuck until the the fields goes VFR

HALF MOON BAY, CA

HALF MOON BAY (HAF)
TAKEOFF MINIMUMS AND (OBSTACLE) DEPARTURE PROCEDURES AMDT 1 15SEP16 (16259) (FAA)

TAKEOFF MINIMUMS:
Rwy 12, 2600-2 or std. with a min. climb of 306' per NM to 3400. Rwy 30, NA.

DEPARTURE PROCEDURE:
Rwy 12, climb runway heading to 3000, then climb direct OSI VOR/DME, to cross OSI VOR/DME at or above 3500 before proceeding on course.

TAKEOFF OBSTACLE NOTES:
Rwy 12, tree 2556’ from DER, 212’ left of centerline, 90’ AGL/104’ MSL.

 

[flyingron]

Well, unless you are a commercial operator, takeoff minimums are only advisory.

However, I don't understand the NA. 30 sends you out over the Pacific and you'd think that the climb to 3000 RWY then OSI would work fine there (you're going to be further from OSI than if you left 12).

 

[luvflyin]

Winds seem to always favor RW 30 at HAF for arrival /departure. Being on the Coast FOG is often present.

Looking at the IFR departure procedures. NA for RW 30 ??

So you arrive at the AP to find morons FOG , winds howling down 30 and what now ?? stuck until the the fields goes VFR

HALF MOON BAY, CA

HALF MOON BAY (HAF)
TAKEOFF MINIMUMS AND (OBSTACLE) DEPARTURE PROCEDURES AMDT 1 15SEP16 (16259) (FAA)

TAKEOFF MINIMUMS:
Rwy 12, 2600-2 or std. with a min. climb of 306' per NM to 3400. Rwy 30, NA.

DEPARTURE PROCEDURE:
Rwy 12, climb runway heading to 3000, then climb direct OSI VOR/DME, to cross OSI VOR/DME at or above 3500 before proceeding on course.

TAKEOFF OBSTACLE NOTES:
Rwy 12, tree 2556’ from DER, 212’ left of centerline, 90’ AGL/104’ MSL.

Scheduled publication date is 04/20/23.

https://www.faa.gov/aero_docs/acifp/2017071023410701005-HAF/CA_KHAF_ODP_HALF MOON BAY_ONE_S.pdf

 

[luvflyin]

@RussR . I’m wondering if that 192’ low close in tree may have been topped. Like it used to be taller, prohibiting an OPD, and they got it down into ‘close in’ territory allowing the DP. Just a thought. If not, can you see a reason there wasn’t a DP before? And I don’t see anything about a Diverse Vector Area. There is one now for RW12

 

[RussR]

@RussR . I’m wondering if that 192’ low close in tree may have been topped. Like it used to be taller, prohibiting an OPD, and they got it down into ‘close in’ territory allowing the DP. Just a thought. If not, can you see a reason there wasn’t a DP before? And I don’t see anything about a Diverse Vector Area. There is one now for RW12

This exact procedure was a topic of discussion during the Opposing Bases Podcast episode #154, starting at about 48:00.

https://opposingbases.libsyn.com/ob154-antarctic-reroute

The "most likely" reason in this case is the proximity of SFO departures and arrivals. Likely decades ago ATC said "no", and nobody (local users, airport management, etc.) had re-requested it since. Until about last year, and then the procedure was designed and will publish in April 2023.

 

[luvflyin]

This exact procedure was a topic of discussion during the Opposing Bases Podcast episode #154, starting at about 48:00.

https://opposingbases.libsyn.com/ob154-antarctic-reroute

The "most likely" reason in this case is the proximity of SFO departures and arrivals. Likely decades ago ATC said "no", and nobody (local users, airport management, etc.) had re-requested it since. Until about last year, and then the procedure was designed and will publish in April.

Ah Ha!! It's ATC again

 

[RussR]

Ah Ha!! It's ATC again

Well that's not 100% sure, because there was no reason given in the description. But given location and the fact that runway 30 would depart over the water (so no obstacle issues), it seems most reasonable.

 

[aterpster]

Well that's not 100% sure, because there was no reason given in the description. But given location and the fact that runway 30 would depart over the water (so no obstacle issues), it seems most reasonable.

My guess is lack of radar coverage before FUSION.

Runway 12, non-radar departs the critical area. Runway 30 goes right into it.

Sort of what you said.

 

[luvflyin]

My guess is lack of radar coverage before FUSION.

Runway 12, non-radar departs the critical area. Runway 30 goes right into it.

Sort of what you said.

What critical area?

 

[aterpster]

What critical area?

Lots of ATC issues in that direction without radar.

 

[luvflyin]

Lots of ATC issues in that direction without radar.

Ah. Gotcha

 

[Palmpilot]

Lots of ATC issues in that direction without radar.

Is RADAR NW of HAF blocked by terrain?

 

[aterpster]

Is RADAR NW of HAF blocked by terrain?

No, not center radar. But, before FUSION NCT did not have access to that radar. And, center doesn't work that airspace down low.

 

[pb172]

ran in to the same problem. saw the the "T" on chart and the NA for the RWY30. after being vectored over the pacific for the approach at night, did not want to take off and head back out to sea, so did low approach and asked for vectors for the KOAK ILS28R then got vectored under the bravo.

Noted that ATC requires clearance to fly that VFR transition route along the coast. Its high traffic due to the golden gate, the scenic route if you will. So, I wonder if taking off on 30 causes interference w/corridor traffic.

 

[aterpster]

ran in to the same problem. saw the the "T" on chart and the NA for the RWY30. after being vectored over the pacific for the approach at night, did not want to take off and head back out to sea, so did low approach and asked for vectors for the KOAK ILS28R then got vectored under the bravo.

Noted that ATC requires clearance to fly that VFR transition route along the coast. Its high traffic due to the golden gate, the scenic route if you will. So, I wonder if taking off on 30 causes interference w/corridor traffic.

Guess not, since Runway 30 ODP is in the FAA "pipeline." I believe it was about lack of radar before NCT got fusion.

 

[Palmpilot]

ran in to the same problem. saw the the "T" on chart and the NA for the RWY30. after being vectored over the pacific for the approach at night, did not want to take off and head back out to sea, so did low approach and asked for vectors for the KOAK ILS28R then got vectored under the bravo.

Noted that ATC requires clearance to fly that VFR transition route along the coast. Its high traffic due to the golden gate, the scenic route if you will. So, I wonder if taking off on 30 causes interference w/corridor traffic.

In addition to what aterpster said, I don't think corridor traffic is supposed to be in IMC, and in VMC, see-and-avoid should work.